sapphi_snake said:
Also, you're not really putting the condom splitting thing on him, right? I mean sex with a broken condom is just as pleasureble as sex with an intact condom. What could he gain from that? Plus condoms break sometimes. Does it sound that far fetched? As for the second one, where eactly did it say the he didn't tell her? It says she said "No sex without condoms". The had sex with a condom, and then sex without a condom the following morning. It doesn't say that he decieved her (they most likely just woke up, decided to have some morning sex, and forgot all about the condom), and the woman had no problem going out and buying the guy breakfast, so she obviosuly wasn't too upset abot the "rape" at that time. Then those girls met and decided to sue the guy by taking advantage of Swedish laws, and to bring attention to themselves. Honestly, I see no rapes having taken place, and your comparison reminds me of when homophobes compare homosexuality to padophilia. Totally not the same thing amigo. |
Sex without consent is where they say so. And yes, the first one very well could be put on him depending how much it split based on the allegations you would think SPLIT.
As for the bolded... go actually read something about rape victims. The homophobe comment is pretty apt though... because you are acting like one.
One day, you will be very ashamed of yourself.
And you know... i've still directly proven your logic wrong on "what is and what isn't" rape vs the blindfold situation and someone lieing about the agreed preventative measures.
